Inconsistencies

I have a really old Anniversary dictionary and one that must have been printed a bit later.

I was horrified (yes, HORRIFIED) to find that “laboratory” was written l-a-b-r disjoined r-e and that “multigraph” was m-oo over g-r-a-f.  The later dictionary had them right.

I think it was the original Anniversary Speed Studies which had “current” as k-reverse e-nt (much like one writes “garden” or “card”).

And here I didn’t think they made changes once the system and the dictionary were published.

(by Marc for greggshorthand group)

26 comments Add yours
  1. Many of the disjoined prefixes were discontinued in the Anniversary Manual; however if you have a copy of the 1902 Manual these "inconsistencies' are explained starting on page 100, Paragraph 149; and in the 1916 Manual, page 96, paragraph 109. Doubtlessly many shorthand writers continued to employ the disjoined prefix +TR followed by a vowel principal for many years after the publication of the Anniversary Manual. (Although my basic reference system is Anniversary, I automatically write the proper name "Peterson" as disjoined P-E over SN.) Some of the posted reading matter and OGA tests posted on this site, although dating from the Anniversary years, yet employ a few of the pre-Anniversary shortcuts.

  2. I also have that early edition of the dictionary, annotated by Mrs. Richmond with the paragraph number that explains the principle behind each outline. There is another edition (which I also have), in which "laboratory" is still incorrect, but "multigraph" was corrected: that's the other dictionary in Mrs. Richmond's collection in which she circled and annotated all of the wrong outlines. At one point, she writes in shorthand: "Has this been fixed on the plates?"

  3. I remember someone mentioning that the earliest Anniversary materials had a lot of bugs to be corrected in later printings. I think there was mention of the timiing, coming close to the death of Mrs. Gregg, but the massive changes in the organization of the manual may also have contributed.

    Also, I can understand someone lapsing into the occasional old, familiar outline before the new rules had had a chance to become ingrained.

  4. Some of the errors that Mrs. Richmond corrected in the first editions of the Anniversary dictionary were indeed cases of retaining the Pre-Anniversary outline (as in the case of "multigraph"). However, for "laboratory", the Pre-anniversary outline is completely different (l-a-b-disjoined re) to what Marc wrote. So either they did not do a good job in proofreading the dictionary, or they did not have a convention to follow (or a standard outline) for those odd words while the dictionary was created.

  5. In a copy of the Anniversary Manual which I purchased in 1963 (renewed copyright 1957) "designate" is written D-S-E-G as opposed to the 1930 list of corrections D-S-G. Interesting, isn't it, that 14 years after publication of "Simplified" not only was the Anniversary Manual still in print but McGraw-Hill took the time to renew the copyright.

  6. Geez, I bet the head offices of Gregg were like a madhouse back in 1930 after the publication of the faulty Anniversary Manual, LOL. I do prefer D-S-E-G rather than the pre-Anniversary D-E-S-G for "designate". Looks like from 1902 until 1929 Gregg students were encouraged to improvise upon the given disjoined prefix and suffix principles presented in the basic Manual. Truthfully, to paraphrase John Robert Gregg, what does it matter as long as you're able to read and transcribe what you wrote?

  7. Obviously you gotta get up pretty early to get anything past Phil! Good catch, sir. One of the projects I've got on the side is a re-typing of the corrections to be formatted so the pages can be tucked away conveniently in the back of the Manual. I think a slight modification from the original will be called for. 😉

  8. Wasn't that also about the time the Diamond Jubilee series came out? It is interesting that there was enough demand for the Anniversary edition to keep it in print so long.

    The Simplified manual is in a similar situation today. In fact, as far as I know, none of the three series that followed it is still in print, but you can find the Simplified manual new — and in stock — in bookstores.

  9. Like I have always said: they should've stopped simplifying at Simplified, :-). (Even then, in some cases they went too far — case in point, the word "manufacture.") And the fact that the manual is still being printed tells me that there must be some demand. But again, that's just my opinion …

  10. Isn't Simplified close to a copyright expiry? I wonder if printing it does something to its status. These days, it's easy enough to print small runs. Per book, they're more expensive than larger runs, but they mean books are never out of print.

  11. Hmm, good question. I'm not sure how that worked after the first copyright renewal. But, on the other hand, there's not much point to protecting the copyright unless there's at least some value to it. Unless you're simply very territorial, I suppose.

  12. Not that it's relevant in 2012, but in 1963 the Anniversary Manual, Gregg Speed Studies (Third Edition), and the key to the Speed Studies were still published and could be ordered through local bookstores.

  13. MORE horrification has occured. No, I'm not referring to my use of "horrification." Two other possible boo-boos in my dictionary:

    eventual: e-v-nt-l
    eventually: e-v nt-ily

    I can see where that comes from but I've never written it that way. It just doesn't flow.

    avoid: v-oi
    avoidable: v-oi-b
    unavoidable: n-v-oi

    I keep wanting to add the b. Is this something that was corrected or am I going down the wrong path here?

  14. My copy of the dictionary has e-v-nt-l-e for eventually, so it appears to have been corrected at some point.

    At a glance, it appears that many of the -ble-without-the-b words would have ridiculously dangling outlines if they did include it.

  15. First one is wrong: -ually is not written with the loop. Only -ily (one l) and -ally (two ls) are written with the loop.

    The second one is correct, because you don't need the "b" to know that it is "unavoidable." However, what is an inconsistency is the fact that the "b" is joined in "avoidable." The convention that the dictionary follows is that the suffix is disjoined if the outline is abbreviated. So, "unforgivable" is "n-f-g-e-disjoined b". Other inconsistent outlines are "favorable" (and "unfavorable"), "receivable", "regrettable", and "respectable", with the "b" joined.

    it's worth mentioning which words ending in "-ble" do not have the "b" at the end: "accessible", "capable" (and derivatives), "dirigible", "assemble" (and derivatives), "indispensable" (similar case as "unavoidable"), "ineluctable", "ineffable", "irrefrangible", "perceptible" (and its derivatives), "possible" (and its derivatives), "responsible" (and its derivatives), and "vegetable." Also remember that "able" and "sable" are written in full, and that "voidable" is written "v-o hook-i-d-b."

    It can get crazy, indeed.

  16. I think it depends on what you want to use it for.

    For personal notes, you can write whatever you want (use idiosyncratic abbreviations or phrasing, write words shorter or longer than by theory, whatever); it’s when you want to use it for shared communication that you need to stick to theory, e.g. when writing a letter to someone, printing a book, or writing minutes that someone else will transcribe.

    I believe the latter possibilities used to be more common about 100 years ago but are virtually extinct these days, even more extinct than handwritten shorthand in the first place. So having “Any Gregg writer can read any other Gregg writer’s notes” may not be useful any more, but it used to be a consideration, I think.

  17. True.

    So it also depends on whether you produce nearly exclusively short-term documents (minutes of meetings that you’ll typically transcribe soon, shopping lists, etc.) or also long-term ones (such as diary entries).

  18. Ironically although I'd not used Gregg except for personal shopping lists and notes for several decades, my interest was reawakened when I unpacked a box of old books and found several shorthand pads among them full of business meeting notes and letter dictation I'd taken ca. 1970 an found I could easily read them. We were drilled in high school classes to emulate the plates in the books and at least once weekly had to exchange our notes with another student to be transcribed … so it was impressed upon us that we should follow the "penmanship" in the text books. Perhaps new shorthand learners aren't being as meticulous in copying well written shorthand as we elderly folk were?

  19. Absolutely! Without a teacher to balance perfect shapes vs writing speed (vs neither, just race ahead), it's hard to do it right. Also, since we don't have a teacher keeping us going even when we're bored with it, the only time we do it is when we're interested or need to use it — so we're more likely to invent short forms that don't hold up.

Leave a Reply